maryann, and i mean, they are sitting there deciding they don't have to stand with first amendment rights in social media? is somebody out of their mind here? >> i think the landscape shifted. we saw that in the campaign. we've seen it in the wake of newtown, and groupon, obviously, is responding to pressure, and i think as much as government intervention will change some violence to a agree, economic circles change it more. >> specifically, groupon, that was about training for handguns, people that had the guns, training for them. that's not something we want to encourage, want to say that's a good thing? training. lou: first amendment, freedom of expression. thank you, all. if we can't vote on it, i support all of the above. thank you very much.

thank you for your comments. i just want to quickly say when you have, according to sal, most of the news outlets in the back pocket, it hardly matters what your approval ratings are. well, all the worst other than two presidents in modern history. that's all for us tonight. goodrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrk. thanks for being with us. neil: $4 billion says you'll fi the word "deficit" once, and the word "debt" not at all. more than 24 hours after the speech, $4 million says try as you might to search what the president said, you won't find the words or the will. my friends, the problem is not the fault of the president who doesn't see the four million bucks added to the debt each day as a problem. the problem is that republicans who claim it is their number one worry haven't given him a reason to care. ♪ welcome, everybody, i'm neil

cavuto, and back to the cold of wash, the cold reality now sinking in here in new york. the signature crisis of the times worth a little mrn a single word in a president's speech. the issue is not that barack obama didn't want to talk about what we owe. the issue is that so many newspapers today and broadcasters yesterday and today didn't seem to care. it's as if the media concluded if we don't talk about it, there's no reason to fuss about it. i find it odd from the bunch that rightly fumed over don't ask, don't tell, perfectly happen to play this role in don't count, don't worry. the media depicted battles of gay rights as one over taxpayer rights. can't everyone have rights? gays rejoice, the president came to your call in the speech, but passing reference to the financial peril. he's all by set on auto pilot. it is sad we remembered a man utterly famous for the words

"free at last," but the president couldn't choose this speech to say at least this moh. everything for free stuff cannot last. the president has an opportunity to cut if he wanted to cut, but he didn't, and that's the end of the story. dick, what do you think of it? >> well, i don't think he really cares. i think president obama has demonstrated very clearly that economics in finance are much more difficult concepts to grasp than sociology, and that's why, of course, the press swing with themself so well. they just can't handle the deep subjects, but beyond that, this president believes that it's his destiny to use a growing government to fulfill all of his father's dreams and, quite frankly, he doesn't care because he thinks he found the money tree, and he can start all -- neil: i think it's more than

that. i don't assign the sinister mode here as much as his view, and i really believes it comes through time and again that the government will get us out of this, that the government wills for economic growth, and he's embolden by ironically the same wall street that doubled in value from the lows when he first came in that it is a vindication of what the government has done. what do you think of that? >> well, of course, this is the problem with -- the economics, a little bit of understanding in the hands of armed amateurs so they can massage it for their self-interest a in terms of how to milk a government cash cow, and you can get idiotic believer reenforcing out of places like wall street so bad economics is good if it puts money in my pocket. now the fact of the matter is the paramount problem of the world today is the size of the united states' federal

government budget, the amount of money it spends, the amounts of money meddles in the world economy, and to the degree of which all of the spending and meddling is not paid for out of current income -- neil: doesn't make a great captivating speech. there's no war on this. right to point out television animal opportunity miss the. what struck me more was to do that, he had to sense that republicans didn't have the power or organization to challenge it. by not mentioning it, and by the media then correcting conservatives who dare condemn that deletion from the president's speech, he feels that it's the wind that hid that and not at republicans for reigning in that spending. >> well, and i think so, and this is where speaker boehner has the perfect opportunity to change the narrative by forcing everything through regular legislative order. you control what goes to the floor. don't reauthorize programs.

i would love to have the nation debate the question, should we not reauthorize americorp or cut the marine come. they'll ask what's americorp? what's it do? the speaker can start the process if he has the discipline to adhere to regular order and exercises his control -- neil: running with their tail between their legs, running scaredded, lost the election, doesn't mean they lost the backbone or resolve or whatever used to be in their dna that showed some discipline. they lost that now, and seeded it to a president who talked up entitlements in the speech, talked the merits of government spending, strongly as ronald reagan did, the dangers of government spending, and these might be new times. how do they challenge them? >> well, again, i think they challenged them by getting back on to the floor, get a budget, force a budget to be out there, debate the budget, put the

budgets up for across the board vote. make the press deal with the realities of our nation and the size of the government and the tradeoff decisions that must be made, but let the house right the narrative. neil: the media won't play that fight fairly, and republicans, in order to complete that fight, must, like, alcoholics at an aa meeting, come out, stand up, and say, look, look, we -- >> all right -- neil: spent too much and learned the error of of our ways. take it from us. it's not a good way. >> the best things republicans do is just quit caring about the media. understand -- neil: i'm telling you though -- >> it's a sports page, not the editorial page. neil: i understand, but the media frames you as idiots. turn around, make them look like idiots. >> exactly right. i want to see any big shot

anchor man or sunday morning show host explain why it's better to reauthorize americorp than to cut the marine corp., why authorize public television than it is to, in fact, hold the line on the debt. neil: okay. >> the fact of the matter, the narrative can be come pepped to come out of the legislative action of the congress, let them step out first, and let the media play catchup. neil: dick, thank you, no exception to referring to the others as big shot anchorman. a overshot on your point. >> no, no, way beyond that. neil: thank you very much. it is a wonder why we had buyers on wall street. stocks up again despite washington giving up, again, at least for now, today, proof that republicans are not just passive

observers in the circus, but accomplices to what, to me, looks like a fiscal crime. the house landing a vote tomorrow to push back the debt ceiling, another three months to may. monica, michael, and ron, ron, you worry thousandth this punt on the the deet ceiling, why? >> not just punting, but retreating. ironic because they just finished a, quote, retreat. we have to stop stealing from children and the next generation. stop stealing from them tomorrow, fight the next fight. not caring for this today. frankly, i think it's disgraceful. they are requiring the senate to pass a budget, but the senate cease going to pass a democratic budget, one that raises taxes and probably increased spending, too, and what good is that? we're not requiring the senate to balance the budget in ten years, 25 years, or ever. i don't know what good is coming from the deal. you're right. it's unfortunate, and it's a retreat. remember this, he may not have the votes to pass it tomorrow.

conservatives in the house can still step up and say, no, listen, we're doing something today. today is the day to save the nation and children. neil: could be the argument that, you know, cooler heads prevail, get the ducks in order doing this in may versus now. i think on both party's houses for just delaying making such decisions, period. >> we've been kicking the can for a couple of years, if not longer, others argue that, but i think having this conversation four times a year for the next couple years or however long it takes is a really, really bad idea because the margs needs stability. businesses need stability. >> maybe not. the markets are fine with it. >> creditors need to know we're not going to take any opportunity to strategically default. we need to look like good borrowerrings and that allows us to borrow in the future. neil: that wouldn't market and credit agencies just celebrate delaying rather than pushing to the brink? >> i'm not trying to justify the

financial disorder and lack of spending cuts. i very much think there needs to be spending cuts. i think the big problem is we created a lot of uncertainty in not having defined agreed upon proposals, and i think pushing this off a couple months is a good idea, but we definitely need to be decisive on something to stick out for awhile. the three month short term will use to get cuts. i don't think it's a good idea. not from a business standpoint. neil: michael, in the meantime, $4 # billion a day to the et every day. now, hope springs eternal in the president's state of the union address there might be magic between the republicans and democrats to deal with that, but there's not. >>no magic, nothing snapping fingers and solving the problemmings. it takes compromise on beth side. we cut spending and raisedded $600 billion in taxes in ten years, getting us some of the way we need to be. neil: $1.8 trillion over ten years?

where's that fro? >> what it counts is ever since the bowel simpson commission cut spending and raised revenue, we have cut spending, raised revenue, and -- >> where did we cut spending? >> i'm curious as well. >> i'll answer the question. cut it twice, first on the appropriations process in fiscal year 2011, reducing spending based on relative to what it otherwise would have been, and the budget control act reduced it further. that is about one and a half trail dollars of spending cuts. >> we didn't increase spending as much as we could have. neil: ten years from now, there's $5 trillion more in government spending than today. >> even more, neil, the economy will be larger. as a share of gdp. spending -- >> hold on, make this clear -- >> in fact -- >> the banks looking for a loan, look at my happy stick projection and here's the costs. that's never how it works. >> fine, look at the past three years, spenting grew at the

slowest pace since the eisenhower administration. the idea that spending is out of the control is false. neil: whether you want to argue with fast, it's not fast, it's big, it's not big, it's $16 trillion in the red, and trying to pay for the relevantly low interest rates, i fear the moment that comes -- >> neil -- >> neil: careful, i fear the moments when interest rates pick up a little bit, that that manageable debt, supposedly, becomes a strangle hold. >> neil, you hit the nail on the head. neil: what do you think? >> neil, hit the nail on the head. there's a report, and the grass is stark. it shows that spending without interest is just increasing slightly, same thing as revenue, but with the interest paymentses that's the problem. look right now, each taxpayer pays $3,000 per taxpayer to service the debt every year, and in ten years, that number numbes over $10,000 per taxpayer. the question they need to ask themselves is can i afford $7,000 more a year to pay to china and the other people that

have our debt and get nothing in return, no government services. the interest payments are key, and that's the argument. that is affects everyone every year. >> you are admitting it's not an obama spending spree or a bunch of entitlements, but interest -- >> it is -- neil: you know what? i don't care who is to blame for this. i don't care about the every spending in the bush years, a prescription bush plan, paid for to or not or two wars on the books. i agree with that. i'm not see here he's to blame or barack obama is the one. i'm here to acknowledge the $16 there in debt that we have right now that you can minimize all you want, but i'm telling you, it's going to choke us alive, kill us if we don't find a way to deal with it, and the president missed a golden opportunity yesterday to put this in grand war like terms to address for the next generation and the generations to come, and he did to the. >> it's not a priority. it's clear. i don't think we need to waste

time speculating. >> it's all he talked about the last two and a half years. neil: right, but he just talked up a government of more spending. >> that's just not true. >> it's costs. you're right. we have been talking about it, but have we been doing anything? no. >> federal spending on things like investment, education, and infrastructure declines to the lowest levels in history. >> i hope you are right. >> why does the gao say we have to run sur produces starting today to have a sustainable government? the gao, obama's chosen auditors -- >> misreading it. the gao did not say we have to balance the report today. >> is stays the government is unsustainable unless we have surpluses now for what neil and i said. the interest payments on the debt bankrupt us. $3,000 now, $10,000 a person in ten years. can you afford to pay $7,000 a year? neil: i wish we could go more, but i'm not saying this to blast republicans.

i'm not saying it to blast democrats. both parties have abused the privilege of lying. they gotten to the point now where they have nod addressed the underlying problem. i'm not interested in looking back at who is to blame. here's the mess now. fix it. we're not. all right. when we come back. blast your boss, but keep your job? how you can lash out, but stay in. i hope my staff is not watching. then, beyonce lip singing the national anthem yesterday. i was all over this. today, she could be singing about leaving the nation. lots of other rich folks are talking about bailing, and they are not nearly as hot. the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on all purchases,

plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone but her likes 50% more cash, but i have an idea. do you want a princess dress? yes. cupcakes? yes. do you want an etch-a-sketch? yes! do you want 50% more cash? no. you got talent. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on every purchase plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's the card for people who like more cash. what's in your wallet? i usually say that.

>> what would you say you do here? >> look, i already told you, i deal with the customers so the engineers don't have to. i have people skills.

i am good at dealing with people. can't you understand that? what the hell is wrong with you people? >> that guy got fired after shouting out, but he spoke out on lines that he might be in luck. in fact, he would be in luck. recent rulings reinstated workers can for blasting bosses and companies on entities like facebook and twitter, and now to the lawyers, you think they should keep the jobs. another disagrees. you would have them out, period. >> the issue is are these greater protections for employees? not necessarily. you have to understand that when the mlrb issues decisions, they are made on a case by case fact sensitive basis. that's one. number two, say you make a posting, you go to work. you notice that people are treating you differently, not just your coworkers, but, also, the employer. what are you going to do? you're going to follow

retaliation lawsuits. you cannot follow lawsuit and expect to win on circumstance evidence or because you have a hunch. neil: so far fired for that, you would do something. if you were fired for what you knew was -- was offended comments about the bos or company on facebook, shore. >> your employee looks to counsel, and counsel will know the reason to fire someone. neil: nothing to hint you were anything but a model employee, but on the web, you're a serpent. what do you do? >> as an employer what do you do? neil: yeah. >> well, according to the decisions that have come out, you have to allow employees to have a forum, to air grievances, however, that are -- neil: you disagree, saying nay don't deserve the forum. >> in all instances, they don't. the problem for employers, employers are now put in a potion where they have to be the office watchdog. neil: i see, okay. >> what happens when you have

pros who take to the forums and start degrading or criticizing other employees? what happens in that situation. neil: pipe down, will you. your view on this is what? you think that there is stuch a thing as being careful or not? >> well, i think we have to be very careful in america when anything infringes upon our first amendment rights. wise to talk poorly about the company you potentially want to raise in or climb the social ladder? no. i think that employees should do -- should have a forum to say what they want. on facebook, that's more like a personal forum where you can write -- neil: yeah, but 900 million people potentially see it, not that they are all friends, but you know what i mean? absolutely. they advise not to be friends with the boss or like your company page. there should be specific details or policies that are not broad, actually, so that the employees actually know what the employer expects of them, and where i practice --

neil: seems to reason they shouldn't be piping off on the worldwide web about the place where they work; right? >> well, it's digital foot prints. do you want things that are negative out there about you? do you want to post certain photographs that are going to be out there forever? if you then apply for future jobs? it's something that now and the world and technology. neil: i have a behavior clause in the contact. i can't act like an ass in public. i save it for on air. you're saying that's very different from workers who just have sort of like a split personality, angels at work, monsters online? >> i think they have to be careful about disparaging things like trade secrets or product introductions. >> they crossed the line, and that's the issue. neil: what's crossing the line? >> calling your boss a sexual predator with no evidence to prove it. many times the places are wild. they are not regulated. neil: that's strong stuff.

say he's incompetent. you either crossed line, and wait a min, you disparaged him to the worldwide web. >> crossed the line, how is that related to workplace condition? why should you be airing this on social media? >> the employer is right, if i'm the boss, and i see that, well, you're out of here. you're okay with that? >> well, there are workplace protections. what we're hearing from counsel is that the nlrb has made decisions -- neil: you would be against it, would be in the right of the employer to say you're out the of here, don't let the door hit you on your way out. >> it's a human resources process. it needs to be used, okay? neil: what do you think? >> depends in the state and the corporation. in florida, it's a a well state. anyone can fire you for no apparent reason, and including saying they are an idiot on facebook. i think it all depends. neil: wouldn't say that was the

reason. >> and that's the issue. that is the issue, neil. neil: it is? i don't know what i said. >> they are not going to state the reason. neil: of course not. >> it's not because you wrote something on twitter. neil: you came that late. >> exactly, are they really protections? i disagree. neil: maybe i should stop texting here. thank you very much. in the meantime, connect. french actor, not so fat former french leader, not at all fat or french, golf legends, they are all teed off. why you should listen up because if this is a trend, we're going to get clubbed. ♪ [ male announcer ] where do you turn for legal matters?

at legalzoom, we've created a better place to handle your legal needs. maybe you have questions about incorporating a business you'd like to start. or questions about protecting your family with a will or living trust. and you'd like to find the right attorney to help guide you along, answer any questions and offer advice. with an "a" rating from the better business bureau legalzoom helps you get personalized and affordable legal protection. in most states, a legal plan attorney is available with every personalized document to answer any questions. get started at legalzoom.com today. and now you're protected. [ male announcer ] when you wear dentures you may not know it, but your mouth is under attack. food particles infiltrate

and bacteria proliferate. ♪ protect your mouth, with fixodent. the adhesive helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it. ♪ [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

neil: you know, i don't know if phil mickelson knows nicola, but i know a golfer and politician are teed up. the gripe? taxes so crazy that they are itching to just get out of town. period. in sarcozy's case, the homeland of france, and mickelson's case, california. phil dialing back a bit, and there could be tax dodges as could change his particular beef a lot, but they both represent a scene that is being played out again and again and again. angry rich guys now saying enough. it's one thing to pay their fair share and quite another to pay through the nose. do they have a point? is it countries pushing higher

taxes on the rich assuming they'll get more money from the rich after they do. history suggests the opposite. tax watchdog, gretchen, i can't blame them for wanting to go elsewhere when the cost of where they are is as prohibitive as they come. >> absolutely. this is a case where we see higher taxes being counterproductive and cost states and countries billions of dollars because you have these high wealth, high profile individuals that left. americans make these decisions every day too. they make decisions about where they spend their money, taxes go up, but, like art laffer and steven between 1998 and 2007, 1100 people daily, day in and day out, 365 days a year, left high income tax states to go to low income tax states. that shows that people vote with their feet. neil: well, california experienced that.

i covered that a few years ago having this wealth flight of upper income california who moved next door to the lower tax state of nevada, not that nevada is firing on all cylinders, but that says a lot about the well-to-do, or those slightly better off than others that when their taxed to the hilt, they move to the hilt. >> they will move. neil: a global trend here. what are we to make of that? >> something to take into consideration. as we're about to head into basically four months of long fiscal debate here on capitol hill when it comes to the budget, when it comes to the sequester and continuing resolution. the president has made it clear that he want as balanced approach, and that he wants taxes to be on the table. neil: it's not a balanced approach. it's not balanced. >> it's not balance the at all, but we need to take this into consideration that we raised taxes once, everyone is seeing less money in the paycheck, and now we ask people to pay more money? stheez companies are going to

look for other places to move to, and that's why we have seen a lot of companies move overseas, not just to move to other states, but move overseas because of the cost of doing business here, because of regulations, and because of taxes. it's just not conducive, and we need to create an environment where the economy can thrive and where we get the root of the problem here, and the root of the problem is spending. spending has become a drag on the economy, and spending is becoming a drag on businesses and individuals who want to succeed here in the u.s.. neil: by the way, cowlgd go anywhere we http://s, i say, for instance, lucky not to have him, but the point with this stuff, full disclose sure here, my taxes went up. i was prepared for that. elections have consequences, taxes on the upper income were one of those. i accepted it. i didn't like it, but i accepted it. i would have been better with it if i knew there was a corresponding zeal to cut spending. in other words, for the extra taxes i give and pay, there is a resolve to cut the waste and

abuse in government spending, and i don't see that quid pro quo. i feel like i'm doubly srcrewed. it is one thing, you know, to fund this nonsense, you then to get a bill to fund more that is doubly insulting. >> and the american people are just that same mind set. we released a poll last week saying, you know, over 70% of the americans believe that the government is spending too much money. they don't even believe that the tax dollars are going to the problem of the deficit and debt. neil: the president didn't even bring it up in the broadest of terms. it's not even on the agenda. when it's not on the and ji da, maybe it comes up in the state of the union next month, but, man, i'm not encouraged, graspen. >> i'm not encouraged either. it's a tipping point. 16.4 trillion in debt. have an opportunity to hold members accountable saying talk is cheap and we cannot continue on this path because the economy, our future, and the

generation can't afford it. neil: maybe your generation. i care about mine, your is n your own. >> it's all about you, of course. what about me? neil: fend your yourself. >> thank you. neil: anyone remember the union dust? i want you to get ready for the legal crackdown. ♪

neil: halftime, it is unions this time throttled, but not in the overall work force where the ranks have declined for some time now, but now in the courts where they had a winning streak appears to be ending. a federal judge knocking down a union lawsuit aimed at overturning ipse's right to work law in another withholding wisconsin's crack down on bargaining law. taken together that unions lost their legal momentum? james, a lot younger looking in person. glad to have you. >> thank you. neil: what do you think of what's going on? we were briefly chatting that these decisions could be anomalies addressing what is frivolous, but nevertheless, what's the impact of both? >> unions are in trouble. one of the unions following the lawsuit in indiana, the operating engineers, their

average dues are $2,000 a year, and the argument was, look, if it's voluntary, members will not pay. that may be true, but that's not an argument for forcing working families to spend $2,000 a year on union dues if they don't think they are getting value for the services. what they are finding in wisconsin, in indiana, in lot of the states that are becoming right to work, is the members will not pay if you don't force them. they say we're not going to force workers to pay. neil: they made a poor argument that it's in this case of stating why the flip side of not paying means that nonunion members are benefiting from union contracts that paying members are gerting. they never quite -- not that i agree with that, but they never made that a finishing argument. >> it's a selective reading. they are not required to bargain on behalf of nonmembers. the law allows the supreme courts repeatedly rule that they negotiate what's called a members only contract. neil: what other workplace do

that? >> they never do that. you have a seniority system or seniority based layoffs. you don't want new hires to have performance bhaised layoffs because unions want new hires to be fired so more senior members are protected. if you got performance based system for some of the workers who are all the sudden, maybe the senior members are fired, they want to force the workers. they really want to force workers to disadvantage under the contracts. they don't do it. neil: something changed in the water, the wind, whatever you call it where last yeah at this time, unions won every legal fight or had the power to have decisions on the part of the governor of wisconsin when he wanted to end collective bargaining or even forcing changes in corporate law that allowed them to move to the fron of the line over bondholders in the case of the auto bailout in chrysler. now, not so much so what is that mean? >> i think the difference is those earlier decisions were coming from the lower level of the courts. particularly in wisconsin.

you have judges that had a case in madison, very, very liberal judges from madison. up to the wisconsin state supreme court or went from the circuit court to the court of appeals, the higher level court said these arguments are ridiculous. they are thrown out. the law stands. neil: you get a sense, barack obama another four years, a number of supreme court justices well into their 70s, so he could tilt what is seen generally as a fight for -- maybe center right court to one that could easy tip left and change court decisions, union and otherwise, for decades to come. >> that's certainly a possibility. it's a dangerous. it would take an extraordinary degree of activism to do that. the law that allow states right to work laws was passed in 1947. the supreme court dominated by the president roosevelt's appointees, very, very liberal

president, upheld it. you know, for decades you had liberal and conservative justices saying this is what the law says. neil: not worried even if the court tips left? >> i think right to work is safe. neil: and unions, safe to say, under pressure? >> they are just going to have to persuade the members they offer services paid for. they have not been able to do that. neil: we'll watch. got the president reelected. >> spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do it. other members had little say in the spending. neil: james, thank you very much. in the meantime, can't afford college? try a sugar daddy, a very generous sure gao gar daddy. how women get a lot of older guys to just pay up. ♪

>> suppose we met a perfectly devine man with only half a million. >> only half a million? we couldn't afford it. neil: well, everything old is new again. in 1957, those ladies were looking for rich guys, and now that's getting more popular and a lot younger. my next guest has it down to a science and a website, a business, one that hooks up college coeds looking for modern day sugar daddies and even sure gao mommies. seeking arrangers ceo calls it a mutually beneficial arrangement. well, brandon, you must have struck a chord here because folks are responding. how does it work? >> well, it looks like any other dating website. you sign up, either as a sugar daddy, wealthy or successful, and or a sugar baby, looking for

a wealthy guy or girl to spoil you. fill out a profile, upload the picture, and you can search. >> the guy volunteering to be the sugar daddy, and i'm not trying to be sexist, but it is mostly guys, they must be expecting something from this? it's not all altruistic. what is it? >> well, they are obviously looking for a relationship, and it's a dating website, so at the end of the day, they are looking for somebody to have a chemistry with and potentially physical inthat ma sigh. neil: i don't think it the relationship is as important as maybe just looking for sex; right? >> i think all dating websites people are looking for sex at the end of the day. call it what it is. neil: critics say, you know what? this is -- this is a pitch for prostitution. what are you saying? >> realm, i think all relationships involve some sort of financial exchange. even my mother got an allowance from my dad. people call it prostitution. neil: i wouldn't say that by extension that makes your mother

a prostitute; right? >> no, certainly not. that's the point. there's a lot of gray areas, you know, this this, and -- neil: right, you are trying to be a gentleman about this, but those who come in to help with college bills or all the college bills, they are going to want something from this, and say sex is most of it. could they be taking advantage of, let's say younger impressionable women? >> well, yes and no. i think certainly the average age of the sugar baby is 27 years old. not everyone is, you know, very young. neil: how old are they in college? maybe that's the problem there. they are just hanging around college too long; right? >> well, that's right. you have to be 18 to join, but certainly with -- neil: any of the sugar daddies younger guys? >> absolutely. on average, they are 40 years old. there's some in their 20s, 30s, as well as nose older in the 40s or 50s.

neil: interesting. and the women, if they are 27, and let's talk about the reverse side of this, the sugar mommies, guys looking for a sugar mommy to play that role. how often do you see that? >> well, we see that, not very often. for every sugar mommy there's 150 male sugar babies vying for attention. the race is more in favor of the sugar mommies. neil: do they meet on the site or send pictures and does the college send the bill to them? what do they do? how do they consummate the weird relationship? >> the relationships mostly have a first day, meet in person, see if there's chemistry, and things move from there. there are relationships that form op line, and these are virtual relationships, and the people never actually meet. neil: wow. a lot of loney people; right? >> that's true. i think it says something else,

the fact there's so many students means obviously there's a problem in the society, and that is the fact that college is so expensive today, and, of course, it's difficult to get financial aid. neil: you're helping. you're reaching out and helping. thank you very much. good having you. >> thank you, neil. neil: well, al gore is smiling, not about the coed thing, but something else that should have a lot of folks worrying. a lot of folks worrying. i mean a lot of fol [ male announcer ] you are a business pro. executor of efficiency. you can spot an amateur from a mile away... while going shoeless and metal-free in seconds. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choo any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. now this...will work. [ ale announcer ] just like you, business pro. just like you. go naonal. go like a pro. olaf gets great rewards for his small business!

pizza! [ garth ] olaf's small busins earns 2% cash back on every purchase, ery day! helium delivery. put it on my spark card! [ pop! ] [ garth ] why settle for less? great businesses deserve great rewards! awesome!!! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet?

neil: al gore must be feeling like, i don't know, thor. he's been hammering home a global warming for years, and now he's got a bunch of world leaders also avenging climate change. president obama making a huge push for it in his inaugural, and now a group led by the former mexican president

calderón was $14 million to green the global economy, $700 a year through the year 20 30. what do you think of it? >> it's illegitimate. it's coming from calderón. anybody think mexico's better now? i have a parent in mexico, and they have seen it fall apart. the fact of the matter is there's 2,000 leaders flying into a resort to meet up and figure out how to spend the world's money to make this problem better. it's more disgraceful in my mind. the fact of the matter is america's on the hook for this funding a quarter of what the u.n. does. it's a similar set up. u.s. taxpayer dollars if this happens. i don't think it will, but it's the arrogance that gets me upset. neil: monica? >> climate change, i think, is real, and i think that it's a huge issue, but i think the bigger question is if washington can't balance the checkbook, how are they going to control the change of climate? we really have to think about

how we'll fund future liabilities because we can't wish them away, and that underscores the importance of getting the financial house in order now to take care of all of these issues in the future. neil: i think climate change is real as well, michael. here's the worry. we're rich countries giving money to poor countries, many of whom run by shaky, thieving governments, not by the way that we're a vatican ourselves, but that that is a prescription for this disaster. >> well, i don't think we should get worked up about potential fund that has not been set up yet, but the -- neil: that's why i bring it to the nation's attention. >> we do need to do something about climate change. we do need to invest now to prevent damages down the road, and -- neil: you're assuming that what the climate change which can be cyclical, it's something manmade so that we got to correct

something man is doing. >> neil, i don't want to have a debate about you. the science is settled on this issue. >> no, it's not. >> no, it's not. >> yes, it is. i'm sorry, i'm not debating -- neil: here to say that we're saying climate change is a real problem. >> thank you. it is a real problem. we have to do something about it. neil: you don't know what to do about it. what are you going to do? where are you going to spend the money? >> if there's a fire on your lawn, and you say, well, it costs too much money to put it out. neil: if the money was not waed and abused, what are you going to do with it? >> look, over the past few years, we have done a lot already, and we hopefully will do more. solar capacity is up. wind capacity is up. notch rail gas, clean natural gas, that's a really promising area. there's a lot of things that we could be doing. nemo kneel okay. -- neil: ron, what do you think? >> cut the national oceanianic administration. cut that or cut nasa, scientific agencies that help us solve the

problem. that's a great idea. >> you made the point. ron? >> thank you. i don't know where michael's getting the money. i don't know where president obama's going to get all this money. we have a huge spending -- >> raise taxes. >> well, sure. that's what is going to happen, too. this is what president obama proposes in the coming months. we have two catastrophic problems, climate change and debt problem. use the carbon tax to pay off the debt. the left believe we have to raise taxes further to do this until we make our economy an unsustainable, and the fact of the matter is who does it affect? not wealthy people in switzerland or the rich here, but young people who need jobs, and poor people who need jobs because this will devastate the economy. neil: monica? >> the problem is there's a fire on the lawn, and there's a kitchen on fire and someone breaking in your home at the same time. pick your battles. i think that's how it boils down to. >> i guess i just don't agree. >> there's no lack of problems

that we have to face. the list is very long. it's just a matter of which resources for when and for what. >> monica, only one of them has rising sea levels and more hurricanes and more wildfires -- >> and another one has children stuck in school districts where only 8% graduate. add it to the list. >> i don't understand. the solution then is to cut funding to school districts -- neil: what i worry about is whether you want to get back to climate change and what caused it, whether man or -- >> the solution is not to wish -- neil: calderón is calling the shots, the man who oversaw trillions that disappeared and whose country is all by a guerrilla empire. it's not wrong hands. >> it's not. we are a rich croi. >> not for long. >> we are a low tax country. we have the capacity to solve the problem. we have to have the political will to do it. >> just tax the rich more?

>> that's not true, neil. i can't believe you say that. you know it's not true. where are you going to get the money? it's inaccurate. neil: who pays for it? >> we all need to pay. neil: there you go. we all need to pay, fine. when we come back. would you be really to risk your job to save your colleague's job? how about to save your colleagues? why politicians of both parties willing to lose their jobs to ♪ [ male announcer ] how do you turn an entrepreneur's dream... ♪ into a scooter that talks to the cloud? ♪ or turn 30-million artifacts... ♪ into a high-tech masterpiece? ♪ whatever your business challenge,

dell has the technology and services to help you solve it.

[ slap! ] [ slap! slap! slap! slap! ] ow! ow! [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium-rich tums starts working so fast you'll forget you had heartburn. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums neil: and you know, why i don't think congress will ever ever ever make tough decisions on spending? no one wants to risk their

job. unless you risk it for the right thing, he will do the wrong thing, the lazy and the easy thing that will buy you pass trust me they are not idiots. they know the numbers. they know the math. they know medicare is unsustainable and cutting anything more than 600 billion from defense can be done. they know you have to curtail growth to get a handle on government. democrats know slowing the growth of medicare is not throwing gramm off the cliff republicans know cutting the defense budget cutting the afghanistan and iraq war is not trying taxpayers to the taliban. they know this but will not say it.